Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Abdul Rahim under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari or any other writ praying that certain proceedings taken by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property Jaipur, were without jurisdiction and should be quashed along with all proceedings consequent on the proceeding of the Assistant Custodian or any other order or direction which the court considers proper in the circums-tances of the case.

2. The application has been made in the following circumstances:—

There is a house No. 767 situate in Mohalla Bisatiyan, Chaukri Ghat Darwaja, Jaipur City. A report was made to the Assistant Custodian, Jaipur, in April 1950 that this house belonged to one Aja Khan, who had left for Pakistan and had been taken in possession by certain Muslims from Agra without authority. The Assistant Custodian called for a report from the Field Inspector and after perusing that report notice was issued under Rule 5 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Central Rules, 1949, hereinafter called the Rules. Thereafter on the 15th of April 1950 the Assistant Custodian passed an order under sec. 7(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. 27 of 1949 hereinafter called the Ordinance. Thereafter on the 24th of April 1950 the applicant filed a written statement before the Assistant Custodian objecting to the declaration that had been made under sec. 7. This objection was considered by the Assistant Custodian. On the 12th July, 1950 the Assistant Custodian, who had by now become the Deputy Custodian, dismissed the objections holding that he had no power to review his order. Thereupon the applicant filed an appeal before the Custodian soon after. This appeal was dismissed for default of appearance on the 28th of October 1950, Thereupon there was an application for restoration which was dismissed on the 28th November 1950. In the meantime, it appears that the applicant had gone in revision to the Custodian General also. That revision was dismissed on the 30th of December 1950. The present application was then made on the 29th of January 1951 in this Court.

3. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that there was no foundation for the jurisdiction of the Assistant Custodian who dealt with this matter and passed the first order on the 15th of April 1950. (It may be mentioned that in the application the applicant calls the order as that of the 17th of April 1950 but the correct date seems to us to be the 15th of April 1950). As such it is urged that all the subsequent proceedings should be quashed.

4. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State on two main grounds. In the first place it is urged that the Assistant Custodian had jurisdiction to decide the matter and any irregularity in his procedure would not give jurisdiction to this Court to interfere by a writ of certiorari or by any other writ. In the second place, it is urged that even if this court has the jurisdiction to interfere by a writ of certiorari it should hot exercise that extraordinary power in favour of the applicant who has been guilty of negligence in prosecuting his remedies under the Ordinance.

5. We shall first consider whether this Court can interfere in these proceedings. There is no doubt that the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a limited jurisdiction. The limits of that jurisdiction were considered in a case of the Bombay High Court in Mohsinali Mohomedali and others vs. The State of Bombay (A. I. R. 1951 Bombay 303), and if we may say so with great respect we agree with the observations in that case. These observations which appear at p. 305 are as follows:—

"Now it is unnecessary to repeat that the jurisdiction which the High Court exercises when it issues the high prerogative writ of certiorari is a limited jurisdiction. The Court is not a Court of appeal nor is it a Court of revision. It has no power to correct either findings of fact or even errors of law. Its sole

Click Here to Read the rest of this document